for the big boss of this place

The T-shirt listed is probably infringement due to blurring of the NJ Devils and NJDevs. Only 15% of people asked would have to see a connection between NJDevs and NJ Devils, in some fashion, to lose that court case.

Even if it wasn't infringement, which I doubt, the Devils could still easily tie it up in court to make it not worth the t-shirt makers time but well worth the Devils time to protect their image.

0

Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind

Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

Just to throw out my two cents as I've been checking out the thread...Although I created the actual logo its all based on DM's previous logo and an extension of that so he owns all rights to it...I claim none of it...I'm just helping him out...

The T-shirt listed is probably infringement due to blurring of the NJ Devils and NJDevs. Only 15% of people asked would have to see a connection between NJDevs and NJ Devils, in some fashion, to lose that court case.

Even if it wasn't infringement, which I doubt, the Devils could still easily tie it up in court to make it not worth the t-shirt makers time but well worth the Devils time to protect their image.

The question im posing isnt if its worth it or not for the owners. Thats up to them. Im just making things clear that you can still produce items RELATED to a trademarked team or logo or whatever. What njdevs.com is.

OK, clearly you are new here, so I'm not going to be rude.If you read the thread you'll see it has nothing to do with the name of this site.Secondly, if you know some of the history of issues on this site you'll know some of the headache involved with purging this site of potential infringement usage suits with local media and other national media sources. It was a lengthy battle and effort to make this place "up to code" in the eyes of lawyers and other representation from various parties. It was quite a headache, and many of the members here worked hard to make sure no remnants remained of any potential legal issues. Check the archives.

My criticism of originality lies not with the site name, but the T-Shirt concept. You are essentially pushing an idea that has been frequently explored here regarding trademark issues. The design is sharp that you put up, the mechanics of implementation would require the man-hours of a business.

Not a surprise that DM is not chomping at the bit to get at it. Additionally, the scope and size of selling T-shirts online, opening up an eCommerce site with the pursuant hosting fees and daily shipping tasks seems like quite a lot. I would imagine that just keeping this site running smoothly is enough for one person.

IF there was an easy and profitable way to make this happen I'm sure DM would have found it by now. (especially with the collective knowledge of many great Devil fan posters and entrepreneurial minds here).

Understanding both Copyright Law and Trademark application is a lot deeper than simply reading the Wikipedia online definition.

If you like the site so much, I might encourage the more direct method of clicking the DONATE button as it is a much more direct method of keeping the bills paid here.

Simply put, if DM, or anyone else here was interested (and had found the best business model and approach to circumventing trademark issues), you and I wouldn't be debating this in a thread....but you'd be talking directly to him or another potential investor.

I understand youre not being rude. But using the bold text the way you did comes off as rude.

I understand youre not being rude. But using the bold text the way you did comes off as rude.

I am on the fence over this whole thing. On one hand, I feel like we dodged a bullet with the Ledger lawsuit and I dont want to incite the Legal department of the Devils which has proven to be effective in taking on the state AND newark at the same time. I don't think a legal claim of mine to print essentially ads for the site will go well.

I would love to have the word of this site go out more with advertising especially at the games, seeing people wear the shirts might get some more traffic fromthe fans to this place. I know several members of the Devils read this site and I am surprised they havent already contacted me regarding this matter. If not to assure that i cant do this again.

I know all about the lawyers and being sued for this kinda thing. Ive gotten a couple cease and desist letter for various things ive printed. Somethign things i stop printing something ive said piss off. There was a new ruling that really screwed the common man.

Lets say you wanted to make a red shirt with black letters that said "2008-2009 champs". That can now be found inviolation of a teams trademarks. Somehow the courts allowed teams to trade mark colors (in relation to the team). Their claim is people will assume its produced by the team.

Anyway, like im doing with my rally towel....taking it as it comes. The free part really elimiantes any law suit cause there is no profit.

For you guys here at the forums, handing out some shirts and generating site traffic will result in the sale of web advertising. I heled another forum get some tees and nwo they collect $600 a month from each advertising partner. They are a very busy forum tho ... www.ls2.com like #120 on the BigBoards rankingsYou can spend some money to make some money. Or like the charities do....donate "this" and recieve a free "this" (thus no taxes).

Anyway, there are was to get the name out there and im willing to help. If youre up for something let me know.

Oh dude don't get me started on copyright laws. The whole way copyright laws are right now needs to be changed. They completely destroy the ability for anyone to be creative or improve upon something already existing for profit, or not for profit.

Turns out we have a member here who is also a member on a board i was referred to by a buddy. The other site has a ton of information on this kind of thing and maybe he will come in and help us get this done.

Im sure he will have much to say about why it can or cant be done, and why im wrong

Turns out we have a member here who is also a member on a board i was referred to by a buddy. The other site has a ton of information on this kind of thing and maybe he will come in and help us get this done.

Im sure he will have much to say about why it can or cant be done, and why im wrong

If DM or anyone else wants to discuss this with an actual IP attorney, I'm happy to contribute my services pro bono. My contact info can be found at sonnabendlaw.com.

The question im posing isnt if its worth it or not for the owners. Thats up to them. Im just making things clear that you can still produce items RELATED to a trademarked team or logo or whatever. What njdevs.com is.

From a pure legal perspective this argument doesn't hold....and doesn't set precedent.The situations are not exactly similar.First of all it incorporates a shirt that does not utilize either the colors of the red Sox nor any logo or symbols.Secondly, the case referenced features an academic institution related sports team - not a company-owned sports franchise that is affiliated with the NHL.Its asking for trouble.

Lastly, no offense, but if you are offended by the bolded type I used, your gonna get a lot more blunt and fiery repsonses from 90 percent of the other posters here. LTry to lighten up - its not personal!

Oh dude don't get me started on copyright laws. The whole way copyright laws are right now needs to be changed. They completely destroy the ability for anyone to be creative or improve upon something already existing for profit, or not for profit.

I totally disagree.Well,......nless your saying that they aren't strict or enforced enough.If anything they don't enforce enough, hence fewer and fewer people are creating anything actually NEW.From a media standpoint, he advent of technology and things like YOUTUBE, LIMEWIRE have made more amateurs and less true artists who have studied their craft.Plus the idea of the general public that all content should be "free" and its only stealing if you get caught.True artists can create rather than just "tweak" an idea.Let me try to walk into a subway and make my own sandwich and walk out the door - how long will that last?Sorry for the rant guys, but as someone who makes a living off creativity it really pisses me off.

I totally disagree.Well,......nless your saying that they aren't strict or enforced enough.If anything they don't enforce enough, hence fewer and fewer people are creating anything actually NEW.From a media standpoint, he advent of technology and things like YOUTUBE, LIMEWIRE have made more amateurs and less true artists who have studied their craft.Plus the idea of the general public that all content should be "free" and its only stealing if you get caught.True artists can create rather than just "tweak" an idea.Let me try to walk into a subway and make my own sandwich and walk out the door - how long will that last?Sorry for the rant guys, but as someone who makes a living off creativity it really pisses me off.

Just how long should something stay copyrighted for because right now the corporations and businesses which like own every fvcking copyright in the USA have virtually indefinite copyrights. They are getting extended time and time again to match the life of the business. How long should they reasonably be allowed to make a profit off of something before someone else is allowed to improve upon it?

What copyright law currently does is two-fold

1 - It prevents a corporation from improving on an already existing product. Why put time, money, and effort into improving something you still make money off of?

2 - It prevents people from legally changing or altering something into something better and making it available for people to use.

It is extremely tough for the average individual with an idea and limited income to obtain a copyright. If by chance they do get the copyright for the idea they had they wind up getting stomped by corporations when it comes to advertising when they buy 100x more airtime to advertise thier product as well as denigrate the individuals copyrighted product.

Copyright laws right now favor the corporation when they should show parity and be equal. Copyright laws need to change so that everything is even across the board.

Just how long should something stay copyrighted for because right now the corporations and businesses which like own every fvcking copyright in the USA have virtually indefinite copyrights. They are getting extended time and time again to match the life of the business. How long should they reasonably be allowed to make a profit off of something before someone else is allowed to improve upon it?

What copyright law currently does is two-fold

1 - It prevents a corporation from improving on an already existing product. Why put time, money, and effort into improving something you still make money off of?

2 - It prevents people from legally changing or altering something into something better and making it available for people to use.

It is extremely tough for the average individual with an idea and limited income to obtain a copyright. If by chance they do get the copyright for the idea they had they wind up getting stomped by corporations when it comes to advertising when they buy 100x more airtime to advertise thier product as well as denigrate the individuals copyrighted product.

Copyright laws right now favor the corporation when they should show parity and be equal. Copyright laws need to change so that everything is even across the board.

You are looking at an issue from only one angle here.Lets get something straight.Are we talking about copyright, trademarks, or patents?You totally have the idea twisted.The original intention of Copyright is based in the British law the Statute of Anne; the goal of which being to promote growth, creativity, and culture by allowing people to benefit from their own creations.Sure the Sonny Bono Act extended term another 20 years, but thats not all that much. For example a copyrighted song lasts for: Life of the Author + 95 years (hence allowing his/her children to benefit).Copyrights are easy to obtain, just fill out the requisite forms at the Library of Congress Website, cost is less than $100.00. Your trying to paint the "evil corporate model" and it simply just isn't true. IF I write a new book or song tomorrow, and register my work, no one bullies me out of the copyright. Also copyright have NEVER been indefinite, term has always been less than 100 years until recently.

It sounds like your angle is more of taking a prexisting product and trying to either improve or upgrade upon it. Hence it violates the issue with "derivative" use..... (most of which falls under patents or trademarks). Thats precisiely why these laws were invented, why invest into the development of something if there is no profit to be made. If you have an original idea you can utilize it.

The solution: Come up with an entirely original idea. Like those before you.

I like the value our laws shoe for creative originality. It separates those who can wholly create from those whose steal and call it "creation" (i.e. hip-hop, rap).